About your Search

20121222
20121230
STATION
CSPAN 3
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 2
CNNW 1
KQEH (PBS) 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 10
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
was the one guy who understood how to stop that. he used to talk about "those boys at the pentagon," i know them. >> he knew those boys at the pentagon. doris, here's a great example of lyndon johnson, the man you knew so well. lyndon johnson wouldn't go out holding press conferences talking act eisenhower. this segment is not going to be about ike, but it is -- we're just talking about presidents who rise and presidents who fall. eisenhower's on his way up by now. but you had, of course, lbj constantly drawing on johnson's -- on eisenhower's wisdom. >> and, you know, the great thing about eisenhower, too, was just that he was so popular among the people. that great song "i like ike, because ike is easy to like," no one else had such a good song. but lbj is rising, too, and i think it's about time that he does. he left under such a cloud, the scar in vietnam so, so painful at the time he left, and the combination now of some distance from the war, the recognition that what he accomplished domestically we cannot take for granted, three great civil rights laws, medicare, just the vibrancy in
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
an afghan police uniform. the latest in the series of green on blue insider attacks and our pentagon correspondent barbara starr joins us live with details on that. good morning. how unusual is this? >> well, alana, sadly this is a story we've report sod often during the year, haven't we? the details on this attack are different in one respect. as far as we know this is a case where a woman, an afghan woman in a police uniform conducted this shooting and killing. a contractor in cab uhl police headquarters. the nato alliance has already announced the incident but not said the nationality officially of the contractor involved. this typically does not happen where the perpetrator is a woman. they are going to have to determine, of course, if she really was an afghan police officer or perhaps the uniform was stolen or she somehow came into possession of it. a continuing issue in afghanistan the past several months. they are trying to work on it. keep an eye on things more closely. be aware when people who want to conduct these acts have basically infiltrated into a safe area, but again,
'm an employee of the pentagon or some place which there are tens of thousands of employees, is there any possibility that any deal that that come up with is going to disproportionately affect a department like that or does that happen across the board? >> well, everything as it is right now is determined by the -- a law that was passed in 2011, the budget control act. that's what set in motion this trigger for sequestration. in that law, roughly half was supposed to go to the department of defense and half in nondefense agencies. but given that, they will be -- that's one of the things that there's uncertainty among federal employees also, because we don't know yet how much discretion agencies will have and how they implement their cuts. and, again, a lot of focus is on sequestration, those automatic cuts. but that law also put in place spending caps that will affect cuts that are even larger than the sequestration cuts. so cuts are definitely coming. that's not even a question. >> ifill: it's not debatable. >> it's just how large they will be and who will be impacted by those cuts. and
, it is not a philanthropic act on the pentagon's part to instruct boeing to build. -- to build in the deficit areas of the u.s. it is pragmatic. the united states federal government -- unless europe is dollarized, unless they do not have dollars to spend purchasing -- unless those who do not have dollars are given dollars to spend purchasing, the net exports of those who have surpluses, then they will stop having surplus. this is the surplus recycling mechanism. thus, we have the 20 years of the golden age. the 1950's and the 1960's. a period of immense stability very low inflation. very low unemployment. universal growth. we had other problems. the lease from the macroeconomic point of view, it was a golden age. why did it end? because the global surplus of recycling mechanism could no longer be sustained. why? because the united states stopped having a surplus by the end of the 1960's. how can you recycle surplus if you cannot have it. -- if you do not have it? enter a young turk in 1971. actually, he was the american, but you know what i mean. well, paul volcker -- that name may ring a bell. in 1971, pau
of state and the new speculation about chuckle over at the pentagon. here are the comments of congressman dingell, the incoming democratic member of the house foreign affairs committee. but there is a huge opposition to the potential nomination of chuckled to become the next secretary of defense, even the president obama has not made his decision. the former senator has come under fire for statements he has made, including one where he referred to the pro-israel lobby as the "jewish lobby." what is your reaction to that remark? >> i think that remark is a troublesome and problematic. it shows that the very best, a lack of sensitivity, and at the very worst, prejudice. i am concerned about the nomination. chuck if has been in the senate for a number of years. there is not only a lot of controversy with that remark, but with some of his boats -- votes. i have been hearing it from what my constituents, mainly in opposition to his nomination. >> you mentioned his boats. there are two sets of things -- he declined to sign some letters in the senate that were related, issues relating to the mid
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)